0:00

This episode is brought to you

0:02

by Peloton. Everyone has a reason

0:05

to change. Growing old, heartbreak, a

0:07

fresh start. Whatever it may be,

0:09

Peloton is here to get you

0:12

through life's biggest moments with instructors

0:14

that speak your language and workouts

0:16

that move to your own rhythm.

0:18

Peloton's tread and all-axis membership help

0:21

you set your targets, track your

0:23

progress, and get stronger, making your

0:25

fitness goals a reality. Find your

0:28

push. Find your power. Peloton. McDonald's

0:30

meets the Minecraft universe with one of

0:32

six collectibles and your choice of a

0:35

Big Mac or ten-piece McNuggets with spicy

0:37

netherflame sauce now available with a Minecraft

0:39

movie meal. And participating McDonald's for a

0:41

limited time, a Minecraft movie, only in

0:44

theaters. So what do you make of

0:46

like the gravity A, gravity B idea

0:48

from Bob Ozar? People can invent lots

0:50

of stories. We know that throughout human

0:53

history that people were telling stories that

0:55

were not true. I just thought it

0:57

was interesting because the project that Bob

0:59

had allegedly worked on was called the

1:01

Galileo project. Did he say that

1:03

before I established the Galileo project?

1:06

He said in the 80s. Oh,

1:08

interesting. I don't know that. He's

1:10

not a practicing scientist. When I'm

1:12

talking about people like Neil Degrass

1:14

Tyson, he's not practicing science. I

1:16

don't know when he wrote the

1:18

last paper, maybe 15 years ago

1:20

or before that. You know, he's

1:22

trying to gauge where the wind

1:24

is blowing and basically trying to

1:26

be popular. He's basing his assessments

1:28

on the number of flags he

1:30

would get. Heard of people in

1:32

actually who were attached to Harvard,

1:34

you know, I think of John

1:36

Mac. reports from people who claim

1:38

that they were abducted. Now, mental

1:40

institutions are full of people who

1:43

claim that they are Napoleon, and

1:45

none of them is Napoleon. There

1:47

was a new program that started

1:49

a year before, and they recruited

1:51

me as one of 25 people out

1:54

of thousands that were, you know, going

1:56

to the military. I was the first

1:58

one to finish a PhD. that program

2:00

at age 24, started a project

2:02

that was the first one to

2:04

be supported by Reagan's Star Wars

2:06

initiative and it was just accelerating

2:09

masses to high speeds using electric

2:11

energy instead of chemical. I call

2:13

upon the scientific community in our

2:15

country those who gave us nuclear

2:17

weapons. And that was the first

2:19

project funded by the strategic defense

2:21

initiative at the time, SDI or

2:23

Star Wars. I'm a shed, who's,

2:25

you know, the father of the

2:27

Israeli space program. Right. But he

2:30

was in the intelligence as well.

2:32

Yes. So that's probably where he

2:34

heard the... But I mean, he

2:36

was also responsible for putting 13

2:38

satellites up into space. Oh yeah,

2:40

but that was not the source

2:42

of information. I see claims to

2:44

have had. I think he was

2:46

referring to things that he heard

2:48

while being in the intelligence. the

2:57

single most life-changing experience I've ever had. And

3:00

one evening, just as the last light of

3:02

dusk was fading and I was backing out

3:04

of the driveway and I saw a little

3:06

red light on the horizon calling us towards

3:09

me. And it went... right over the top

3:11

of me and disappeared into the clouds. So

3:13

a few minutes later I'm driving down this

3:15

desolate one lane desert road and I get

3:17

this really weird feeling like something in my

3:20

head is telling me to look behind me.

3:22

So I look to my left at the

3:24

driver's side window and right behind me and

3:26

right behind me. So I look to my

3:29

left at the driver's side window and right

3:31

behind me about right behind me about right

3:33

behind me. So I look to my left

3:35

at the driver side window and get out

3:37

for solid 15 minutes with no sound either.

3:39

I even thought of trying to tell me

3:42

that it was like something in my head

3:44

told me not to and said this was

3:46

too important to worry about that and that

3:48

should just... Please, one second. Before you hit

3:50

that dial I promise you this will be

3:52

worth your time. You see in the last

3:55

few videos we've been subliminally inserting these

3:57

symbols. Symbols from an ancient

3:59

alien land... symbols that you might

4:01

find in these playing cards. Symbols

4:03

which can only be seen using

4:05

a special technology. With this technology

4:08

and with these playing cards you'll be

4:10

able to decipher what these symbols

4:12

mean. Now every single video will

4:14

feature five of these symbols hidden

4:16

randomly throughout the video. These symbols

4:18

will translate into a code. Insert

4:20

this code into our website. and

4:22

you'll get a prize. You see

4:24

so far every single prize has

4:26

been claimed and they've been claimed

4:29

by an intern because you see

4:31

interns have early access to every

4:33

single video. Increase your chances by

4:35

becoming an intern but don't let

4:37

that stop you from trying. So future

4:39

agents I appreciate your time. Now

4:41

back to your regular programming. Ladies

4:43

and gentlemen today my esteemed

4:45

guest is none other than

4:48

Dr. Avilob who is a

4:50

Harvard astrophysicist best-selling author. Also

4:52

made headlines by suggesting

4:54

that Amuamua, a giant

4:56

interstellar object that entered

4:58

our solar system, might

5:00

be of extraterrestrial origin.

5:02

He was head of

5:04

the Harvard Astronomy Department

5:06

for almost a decade, and

5:08

now currently leads the Galileo

5:11

project, which is the search

5:13

for the scientific search for

5:15

extraterrestrial technology. Right. Welcome,

5:18

Dr. Avulov. Thank you so

5:20

much for joining me. Absolutely.

5:22

So very exciting stuff that

5:24

you're involved in in all

5:27

of this. I mean, it's

5:29

pretty fundamentally groundbreaking a lot

5:31

of the work you're doing

5:33

and very admirable for anyone

5:35

looking in from the outside

5:37

to see the type of work

5:40

you're doing. Well, it's exciting because

5:42

of what it may discover of

5:44

the future. You know, very often

5:46

and you mentioned that your

5:49

podcast is ranked high within

5:51

the history category of podcast,

5:53

but in fact it should

5:55

rank much higher within the

5:57

futuristic or the future brand.

5:59

of podcast because, you know,

6:01

we haven't looked up enough. We

6:04

keep focusing on what happens on

6:06

earth and we might have a

6:09

neighbor that is far more advanced

6:11

than we are. And, you

6:13

know, I've seen a week ago,

6:15

I've seen a turtle that is

6:18

150 years old. It was

6:20

in Neckar Island. I visited Richard

6:22

Branson there. And that... Turtle

6:24

was born in the 19th

6:26

century. It lived through all

6:28

the major advances of modern

6:31

science and technology. But we

6:33

should think of alien civilizations

6:35

that could have existed for

6:37

millions or billions of years

6:39

before. us and therefore they

6:41

have much more advanced abilities

6:43

and it would be like

6:45

this turtle on steroids. Yeah,

6:47

it does seem logical to

6:49

think that way and it's

6:51

just so strange that we

6:53

don't collectively. Oh well, as I

6:56

often say, we are not the

6:58

pinnacle of creation. There is room

7:01

for improvement. You just need to

7:03

read the news every day and

7:05

I do think that one solution

7:08

that perhaps is the best for

7:10

bringing back the sense of oh

7:12

with respect to reality. I mean,

7:15

traditionally it was religions who sold

7:17

ideas about the existence of a

7:19

superhuman entity called God that can

7:22

do miracles and is far more

7:24

capable than we are controls,

7:26

you know, what happens to

7:28

us. And then... you know,

7:30

about 150 years ago, Friedrich

7:32

Nietzsche, the philosopher, said God

7:34

is dead. And that was

7:36

the beginning of the secular

7:38

age that we live in,

7:40

and with modern science and

7:42

technology. But there is a

7:44

way of bringing back the

7:47

sense of oh, and that's

7:49

through the discovery of a

7:51

superhuman entity that lived

7:53

on an exoplanet, somewhere

7:55

else. I think it's much

7:57

more natural to expect

7:59

that... things better than us existed

8:01

for billions of years, then to

8:03

argue that there is nothing out

8:05

there, we are alone, and it's

8:07

an extraordinary claim to imagine that,

8:10

which is what most scientists would say.

8:12

Yeah, and it's very interesting

8:14

as well, even hearing you say

8:16

this coming from such a prestigious

8:18

background, you know, we've... heard of

8:21

people in actually who were attached

8:23

to Harvard, you know, I think

8:25

of John Mac and I think

8:27

of also who we had on

8:30

a few weeks ago, Danny Sheehan,

8:32

who were both, you know, part

8:34

of Harvard, but also both very

8:36

pro, this idea that this phenomenon

8:38

could exist, does exist, should exist.

8:41

Yeah, but they addressed it from

8:43

the human perspective. For example,

8:45

John Mac looked into...

8:47

reports from people who

8:49

claim that they were

8:52

abducted. Now, you know, mental institutions

8:54

are full of people who claim

8:56

that they are Napoleon. And none

8:59

of them is Napoleon. And you

9:01

might say, okay, the story repeats,

9:03

therefore it must be true. I

9:06

say, no, it has nothing to

9:08

do with truth. A lot of

9:10

people have the same issue. And

9:13

in fact, I was contacted yesterday

9:15

by a group of people that

9:18

wants to... have a court appearance

9:20

by eyewitnesses that will describe their

9:22

experiences of UAP, unidentified

9:24

anomalous phenomena. And the

9:27

argument is that if

9:29

enough of them say

9:31

the same thing, then

9:33

maybe it will provide

9:35

enough evidence to convince

9:37

a jury and then

9:39

the judge that what

9:41

they're saying has some

9:43

merit. But from my

9:45

perspective as a scientist,

9:47

you shouldn't rely on

9:49

people when you decide

9:51

what the physical reality

9:53

has. Because even within the

9:56

court system, the legal system,

9:58

we know of... that about

10:00

17% of the exonerated people

10:03

who were on death row

10:05

were found to be innocent

10:07

based on DNA evidence when

10:09

there were eyewitnesses that claim

10:11

that they did the crime

10:13

that deserve death row that

10:16

that's a very serious crime

10:18

but they were not responsible

10:20

for it. So the point

10:22

is you can't rely on

10:24

what people tell you. Because

10:26

people have wishful thinking. I

10:29

mean, FIFA already knows that.

10:31

They use cameras to decide about

10:33

controversial or debatable decisions on the

10:35

soccer field. They don't go around

10:37

and ask the players or the

10:39

audience. They rely on instruments. That's

10:41

the way science is done. What

10:43

we need is data. And that's

10:45

what the Galileo project that I'm

10:47

leading is trying to get. Scientific

10:49

data so that we don't have

10:51

to listen to people. That's why

10:53

what I'm doing is very different

10:55

from what John... I mean, the

10:58

issue is I don't care what

11:00

people tell me. I just want to

11:02

see the data, the evidence. And then

11:04

everyone can be the referee. When you

11:06

are doing science, the beauty of it

11:08

is you don't need to believe anyone.

11:10

You just look at the data if

11:12

it looks convincing. You know, that's fantastic

11:14

and the bliss for me as a

11:16

scientist to be flooded with data so

11:18

nobody can deny it. This episode

11:20

is brought to you by, indeed. When your

11:23

computer breaks, you don't wait

11:25

for it to magically start working

11:27

again. You fix the problem. So

11:29

why wait to hire the people

11:31

your company desperately needs? Use Indeed

11:34

sponsored jobs to hire top talent

11:36

fast. And even better, you only

11:38

pay for results. There's no

11:40

need to wait. Speed up

11:42

your hiring with a $75

11:44

sponsored job credit at indeed.com/podcast.

11:46

Terms and Condition Supply. Ryan

11:48

Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. I don't

11:51

know if you knew this, but anyone

11:53

can get the same premium wireless for

11:55

$15 a month plan that I've been

11:57

enjoying. It's not just for celebrities, so...

11:59

Do like I did, and have

12:01

one of your assistance assistants switch

12:04

you to Mint Mobile today. I'm

12:06

told it's super easy to do

12:08

at MintMobile.com slash, switch. Up front

12:10

payment of $45 for three-month plan,

12:12

equivalent to $15 per month required.

12:15

Intro rate for three months only.

12:17

Then full price plan options available.

12:19

Taxes and fees extra. Feeful terms

12:22

at Mint Mobile.com. No Windows,

12:24

no Wi-Fi, just old files,

12:26

redacted documents, and a transformer

12:28

that probably doesn't work. Here's

12:31

the thing. I spent a lot of time down

12:33

here, trying to stay off the radar. But

12:35

out there, well, there are companies watching

12:37

everything you do. They're called

12:40

data brokers. And their entire

12:42

job is collecting your personal

12:44

information. You're browsing history, your

12:46

purchases, and even where you've been.

12:48

And then, well, they sell it to whoever

12:50

wants it. That's why I use

12:52

incognomy. You see, Incognia is

12:54

like a digital countermeasure. You

12:57

authorize them once, and they

12:59

go out into the wild,

13:01

contacting dozens, sometimes hundreds of

13:03

data brokers on your behalf.

13:05

They legally force them to

13:07

delete your data, not obscure

13:09

it, not rename it, delete it. While

13:11

I'm off the grid in the bunker,

13:13

Incognay, makes sure I stay off-grid

13:15

online. Go to Incognie.com/Area 52,

13:18

and use code Area 52

13:20

to save 60% off an

13:22

annual plan. Take your privacy

13:24

underground and keep it there. Yeah,

13:26

that's that's well said and you know

13:29

for the record a lot of people

13:31

might take that as you don't believe

13:33

anything But it's not that it's just

13:35

that there's a lack of evidence and

13:37

you don't you don't feel like solely

13:40

having one piece of Intel Would be

13:42

enough to come to a conclusion you

13:44

need multiple piece of Intel and multiple

13:46

data points things that objectively

13:49

show Yeah, some some form of

13:51

activity just consider the eyewitness testimony

13:53

as in the congressional hearings. Okay,

13:55

so I believe all these people

13:57

that testified under oath were very

13:59

sincere and In fact, I spoke

14:01

with all of them before,

14:03

and I think they were

14:06

telling what they really believe

14:08

in, and to be the

14:10

truth, but imagine the US

14:13

government having a retrieval and

14:15

reverse engineering program from crash

14:17

sites. And I very much

14:19

believe that they do have

14:22

it, because every now and

14:24

then in a battlefield, an

14:26

airplane or something else, a

14:29

drone would crash. and you

14:31

need such a program in

14:33

order to analyze the technologies

14:36

that our adversaries are using,

14:38

right? So you would want

14:40

the US government to analyze

14:43

materials from crash sites. Now,

14:45

suppose they found technologies that

14:47

the US does not possess,

14:50

or suppose they found

14:52

something they don't fully

14:54

understand, they might give it the

14:56

label of this is... you know

14:59

extraterrestrial superhuman just so that

15:01

nobody would speak about it

15:03

in a serious manner if

15:05

they happen to hear about

15:07

what the US recovered and

15:09

then someone else will hear

15:11

that term extraterrestia and say

15:13

oh yeah actually we have

15:15

evidence for extraterrestrial civilizations that

15:17

are technologically and and it's

15:19

all a matter of rumors that

15:22

propagate without any substance behind

15:24

them. And so when someone

15:26

high up in the administration

15:29

hears that, oh, we have access

15:31

to technologies that are extraterrestrial, you

15:33

know, if they haven't seen

15:35

the actual materials, if they

15:37

cannot give me any details

15:40

about what they saw, it

15:42

could be misguided, not because

15:44

of any bad intentions, just

15:46

simply because they haven't been...

15:48

close enough to the evidence to for me

15:50

to trust it and also in order for

15:52

me to be convinced as a scientist I

15:54

should be able to look into it and

15:56

and share it with the rest of humanity

15:58

you know if it If it's something

16:01

that is from outside the solar

16:03

system, it's not a national

16:05

security issue. It's just like the information

16:07

about the universe starting in a big

16:09

bank. You know, you can't classify that.

16:12

I mean, the church tried to suppress

16:14

the information that we're not at the

16:16

center of the universe, right? So they...

16:18

they put Galileo in house arrest, they

16:21

banned forever after his whole life. Yeah,

16:23

and they banned the book of Copernicus,

16:25

who was a priest by the way,

16:27

he wanted to help them. They had

16:29

an issue, they couldn't figure out the

16:32

time of... Easter accurately and they used the

16:34

model in which the earth is at

16:36

the center and so Copernicus was playing

16:38

around with the data and realized that

16:40

he can actually forecast much better the

16:42

timing of Easter so he was a

16:44

priest loyal to the church he said

16:46

here is a model where the sun

16:48

is at the center and I can

16:50

give you much better prediction of when

16:52

Easter takes place. And they said

16:54

no they said thank you so

16:57

much we will use it but

16:59

we still believe that the earth

17:01

I mean this is just a

17:03

theoretical model. And they banned his

17:05

book until the 19th century. I

17:07

was in Poland, where they celebrated

17:09

just a year ago, when they

17:11

celebrated 350 years to the birth

17:13

of Nicholas Copernicus. They invited me

17:15

to give a public lecture, and

17:17

the Polish government, and I spoke

17:19

about the next Copernican revolution, which is

17:21

to say that we are not

17:23

the technological. center of the

17:25

universe. You know, Elon Musk

17:27

is not the most accomplished

17:29

space entrepreneur since the Big

17:32

Bank, 13.8 billion years ago.

17:34

You know, he sent out

17:36

the Tesla Roadster car as a

17:38

dummy payload on the Falcon

17:40

heavy from 2018. And just

17:43

on January 2nd, this year,

17:45

2025. And amateur astronomers spotted

17:47

an asteroid, he thought, that

17:49

he's passing close to Earth.

17:51

He called it a near-earth

17:54

object. and within after the

17:56

report was classified as an

17:58

asteroid, a near-earth object, a

18:00

few astronomers noticed that it

18:02

has exactly the orbital parameters

18:04

of the Tesla Rotzaka. So

18:06

here you have an example

18:08

of the astronomical community at

18:10

first thinking something is natural

18:12

but then it turns out

18:14

to be artificial. There was

18:16

another case that Omoa was

18:18

discovered by a telescope in

18:20

Hawaii on October 19th, 2017

18:23

and then in September 2020,

18:25

about three years later, They discovered

18:27

another object. This

18:29

one was pushed away

18:32

by reflecting sunlight. And

18:34

then three weeks later they

18:36

realized, oh, it's a rocket

18:38

booster from a 1966 launch

18:41

by NASA. So there are

18:43

cases where we identify technological

18:46

debris that we produced.

18:48

As prosaic, as like a

18:50

rock. Three years earlier, when

18:53

Omoa was spotted, and it

18:55

also showed a motion consistent

18:57

with a push by reflecting

19:00

sunlight as 2020-SO, just solar

19:02

radiation pressure. If an object

19:04

has enough area, a large enough

19:07

area for its mass, then it

19:09

can be pushed, just like a

19:11

sail. It just needs to be

19:13

thin enough. And so Momo showed

19:16

this property, just like 2020 is

19:18

so. And then I suggested maybe

19:20

it is technologically

19:23

in origin. And since we didn't

19:25

launch it, it's not bound to

19:27

the sun, it was moving too

19:30

fast to be bound to the

19:32

sun by gravity. I said, but

19:34

it's another civilization. That was in

19:37

my mind a very simple suggestion,

19:39

right? And verified by

19:41

objects that we launched.

19:44

At first, of course, it

19:46

was immediately published and the

19:48

referee even said, yeah, actually

19:50

what you're saying makes sense

19:53

because it looks like the

19:55

best fit to the shape of

19:57

the object is that of a flat

19:59

pant. like object. But then as

20:02

soon as the media got

20:04

attention and you know a

20:06

lot of people interviewed me

20:08

and so forth I had

20:10

of the other 4,000 interviews

20:12

since then you know. Then

20:14

immediately I started

20:16

getting personal attacks, pushback. And

20:18

you know that's just a

20:20

human response. I mean the

20:23

strongest force in academia is

20:25

jealousy. I don't really pay

20:27

much attention to it because

20:29

this subject is much bigger

20:31

than mine. I will probably

20:34

not be alive a few

20:36

decades from now, but if we

20:38

do have a neighbor, it will

20:40

affect the future of humanity for

20:43

the very long term. It will

20:45

change what we think about our

20:47

place in the universe. It will

20:49

imply that we are all in

20:51

the same boat here on Earth.

20:53

there is a neighbor that we

20:55

can learn from perhaps and study,

20:57

you know, there would be space

20:59

archaeology, a new, you know, a

21:01

completely new discipline, where we would

21:03

collect artifacts from other civilizations, we

21:06

could learn about new science, new

21:08

insights that those neighbors had, and

21:10

they might, most of them might

21:12

be dead by now, by the

21:14

way. Most people, there were more

21:16

than a hundred billion people on

21:18

earth so far, and only eight

21:20

billion are alive right now, so.

21:22

Most of the civilizations that predated

21:25

us by billions of years may

21:27

not be around anymore. Yeah, yeah,

21:29

I mean, it's definitely, definitely fascinating

21:31

to think about projecting forward and

21:33

then, you know, what small amount

21:35

of time that we have here

21:37

compared to, you know, what's out there.

21:39

But here's the, here's the thing. There

21:41

have been, you know, lots of lots

21:44

of lots of reportings and

21:46

lots of sightings sightings and lots

21:48

of sightings. Do you think that

21:50

if there were some, because

21:52

even with the Galileo

21:55

project, which is currently,

21:57

you know, searching for, using

21:59

science, to search for

22:01

extraterrestrial technologies, you

22:04

know, signals of extraterrestrial

22:06

technology. What's the best

22:08

case scenario? Oh, that changes

22:10

everything because that prevents goalpost

22:13

shifting. Oh no, I mean,

22:15

it's just having enough evidence.

22:17

So in June 2023, I

22:19

went to the Pacific Ocean

22:21

to in search for... The

22:23

materials left over from an

22:26

interstellar meteor, an object that

22:28

collided with Earth, roughly half

22:30

a meter in size, back

22:32

on January 8, 2014. The

22:34

fireball from the meteor, as

22:36

a result of its friction

22:39

on air, released about 1%

22:41

of the Hiroshima atomic bomb

22:44

energy and the U.S. government

22:46

satellite spotted it. Based

22:48

on that localization, we could

22:51

go there and search for

22:53

anything, any molten stuff that

22:55

was left over from

22:57

the explosion. The ocean floor

23:00

is two kilometers deep over

23:02

there, and we had to use

23:04

a special device that we built,

23:06

which looks like a sled, but

23:08

with magnets on both sides that

23:10

we put on the ocean floor.

23:12

And now I asked my students

23:14

before I went there, you know,

23:17

if we do recover a gadget,

23:19

and it has buttons on it,

23:21

should I press a button? And

23:23

half of the class said, no,

23:25

please don't press a button, because

23:27

who knows what it will do

23:29

to all of us? And the

23:31

other half said, please do, because

23:34

we are very curious to see

23:36

what will be the result. Is

23:38

it? Maybe it's shot GPT 100,

23:40

who knows? So then another student.

23:42

raised his hand and said, Professor

23:44

Lowe, what would you actually do?

23:47

Because it looks like the vote

23:49

is split in this class. And

23:51

I said, I will bring it

23:53

to the laboratory and examine it

23:56

before doing anything. But in answer

23:58

to your question, if I... If I

24:00

would find a gadget, and by

24:02

the way, we're now planning the

24:04

next expedition because all we recovered

24:06

were tiny molten droplets that are

24:08

less than a millimeter in size,

24:11

that's based on the equipment that

24:13

we use. But we have access

24:15

now to a robot that we

24:17

can put on the ocean floor

24:19

with a video feed and collect

24:21

much bigger pieces from the wreckage.

24:23

It will cost about $6.5 million,

24:25

this expedition. And I'm currently seeking

24:27

someone who would fund it. person

24:30

could join us for the expedition. We

24:32

have an exceptional team. We've been there,

24:34

we know the place, we have the

24:36

ship that we identified with the robot,

24:39

all we need is funding at the

24:41

moment. And my point is if we

24:43

recover a big part of the

24:45

original object, it turns out to

24:47

be a Tesla roadster car that

24:49

was produced by another civilization or

24:51

something much more exotic than that.

24:54

Or even a rock, you know,

24:56

that would be a major... a

24:58

breakthrough because a rock

25:00

from outside the solar

25:02

system, you know, was never

25:04

available for scientists to touch,

25:07

you know, all we have

25:09

seen before were rocks from

25:12

the solar system, from the

25:14

main asteroid belt or from,

25:17

you know, comets that collided

25:19

with Earth. And... You learn something

25:21

new when you have access to

25:23

the action material. You can't see

25:26

everything through telescopes because they are

25:28

so far away. What if it

25:30

is that? What if it is something,

25:32

you know, paradigm shifting? Do you

25:35

think that the academic... just

25:37

academia and general would accept this because

25:39

it's such an anomaly to the current

25:41

model that you know people have a

25:43

hard time they'd prefer ignoring the anomaly

25:46

because it doesn't fit the model then

25:48

completely changing the model and we've seen

25:50

this over and over again. Well I've

25:52

seen it over the past two years

25:55

because when we went to the expedition

25:57

there were a number of scientists who

25:59

said We don't believe the US

26:01

government. This data is not reliable,

26:03

therefore it's not clear that it's

26:06

an interstellar meteor. And I, at

26:08

the time, I was chair of

26:10

the Board on Physics and Astronomy

26:12

of the National Academies, and I

26:14

complained about it at dinner. I

26:16

said, look, what else can I

26:18

do? I mean, the satellites, you

26:21

know, are very reliable because

26:23

they are supposed to detect

26:25

the heat coming from ballistic

26:27

missiles. The defense, I mean,

26:30

budget is now 900 billion

26:32

dollars a year. So they obviously

26:34

perfected the art of

26:36

figuring out, you know,

26:39

the measuring the velocity

26:41

of a fireball, you

26:43

know, that's an elementary

26:45

thing. But the scientists

26:48

were saying, no, we

26:50

just don't believe them. So I

26:52

reached out to the US Space

26:54

Command through the White House and

26:57

they released a letter confirming that

26:59

based on the data they have,

27:01

this object that the 99.99% came

27:03

from outside the solar system. I'm

27:05

just talking about data obtained

27:07

by the US government that is

27:09

being validated by the US Space

27:11

Command. And scientists have a problem

27:14

accepting that. I mean, and just

27:16

keep in mind that in the

27:18

19, at the end of... the

27:20

1960s, beginning of 1970s, the US

27:22

government detected gamma ray flashes.

27:25

The idea was to monitor any

27:27

atomic explosions above the atmospheres. They

27:29

put the Vila satellites to look

27:31

for that and then they found

27:33

some flashes of gamma rays. Initially

27:36

they must have been classified because

27:38

they thought the Soviets are... deploy

27:40

detonating tests. Yeah, but and that

27:42

was after a treaty was signed

27:45

that they're not supposed to do

27:47

that but then they realize oh

27:49

it's coming every day you know

27:51

it and it's not coming from

27:53

the vicinity of earth. So then

27:55

they realize we can publish it

27:58

as a paper in industrial physics.

28:00

journal and then this became a

28:02

whole field of gamma ray bursts

28:04

that come from the edge of

28:06

the universe produced by explosions. You

28:08

have an example of a new

28:10

field being opened by data collected

28:12

by the US government. Why would

28:14

you be host? Nobody back then

28:16

said, oh we don't believe the

28:18

US government, but when I say

28:20

this is an interstellar meteor that

28:22

nobody else identified before, they have

28:24

an issue with that. And then

28:26

we went there, we collected materials.

28:28

And then people said, oh, you went

28:31

to the wrong place. This meteor could

28:33

have been a truck. And I said,

28:35

what? How can a truck produce 1%

28:37

of the Hiroshima atomic bomb energy? And

28:39

then said, no, no, no, we are

28:41

talking about the fact that you were

28:43

also looking at some seismometer data in

28:45

the vicinity of that location. And there

28:47

was a blip in the seismometer. And

28:50

that blip could have been given, could

28:52

have been caused by a truck. And

28:54

I said, well, but. that's not the

28:56

reason we went there it was the

28:58

fireball so they say oh yeah but

29:00

the fireball could have been maybe

29:02

in a different anyway so it

29:04

was not and then another person

29:06

said oh you must have found

29:08

coal ash something that is terrestrial

29:10

I mean this is like completely

29:13

unprofessional because we had the materials

29:15

this person that didn't have the

29:17

materials we were analyzing it with

29:19

the best instruments in the best

29:22

instruments in the world in a

29:24

laboratory that is the most reliable,

29:26

you know, out there by a geochemist

29:29

named Stein Jacobson, my colleague at

29:31

Harvard. We were, we analyzed 60

29:33

elements from the periodic table, show

29:35

that it's not called ash. But

29:38

I'm just showing you how people

29:40

are trying to beat under the

29:42

belt, you know, without any reference

29:44

to evidence they have to

29:47

counteract, it's just to destroy,

29:49

to kill. and to remove

29:52

any credibility from the scientific

29:54

study being done. Now it

29:56

takes a lot of work

29:59

to actually... First of all,

30:01

identify the object in the data

30:03

that was released by NASA, then

30:05

write a paper about it, then

30:07

design a plan to go to

30:09

the Pacific Ocean, get the ship,

30:11

get the funding of one and

30:13

a half million dollars, do the

30:16

work, go there for a few

30:18

weeks, spend time on the ship,

30:20

you know, I didn't sleep much,

30:22

bring the materials back, then analyze

30:24

them for a year. All of

30:26

this is a lot of work.

30:28

Those critics. Those critics. all they're

30:31

doing is sitting on their churn

30:33

and you know raising dust and

30:35

claiming they can't see anything and

30:37

it's really frustrating because as far

30:39

as I'm concerned they're anti-science they

30:41

just want to step on any

30:43

flower that rises above the grass

30:45

level because of jealousy because of

30:48

I don't know what the point

30:50

is that you can't innovate in

30:52

science within such a climate and

30:54

so This is to answer your

30:56

question, indeed, there is this, you

30:58

know, goalpost shifting. Well, yeah, culture

31:00

of scientists, and it is anti-science,

31:03

you know, it's often portrayed as

31:05

if anti-science sentiments come from the

31:07

general public. I got a lot

31:09

of, you know, there were a

31:11

few million people that were following

31:13

my diary reports on medium.com, while

31:15

the expedition was going, there will

31:17

be a Netflix documentary coming out

31:20

in a year. The public was

31:22

very much excited, curious to see

31:24

what we find. Of course. The

31:26

anti-science sentiments came from scientists. Yeah.

31:28

and not from the government and

31:30

that's this the one thing like

31:32

the government is another yeah they

31:35

supported the US Space command check

31:37

the data confirmed it and usually

31:39

the government like in this space

31:41

in the UFO space you know

31:43

a lot of people I think

31:45

well the government's been sort of

31:47

anti-disclosure and they're hiding things but

31:50

in this case they were very

31:52

supportive which is really interesting but

31:54

it wasn't the government that was

31:56

stopping they were stifling the research

31:58

was the scientists. The scientists. Now,

32:00

you know, you might say, okay,

32:02

well, it doesn't really matter in

32:04

the long term, but it does,

32:07

because now when I'm trying to

32:09

seek funding at six and a

32:11

half million dollars for the next

32:13

expedition, I have difficulties because people

32:15

see all these claims that are

32:17

completely unsubstantiated. So the effect of

32:19

that is, you know, just like

32:22

the council culture. It also explains

32:24

why terrorism is so effective, because

32:26

it's much easier to destroy a

32:28

building than to build it. I

32:30

mean, it could take years to

32:32

build an empire-tailed building, but then

32:34

the terrorists will just bump into

32:36

it with an airplane. That's it.

32:39

And so if you want to

32:41

uncover new knowledge about anything, then

32:43

it requires a lot of effort.

32:45

That's what I was putting into

32:47

it. And then to destroy it

32:49

is very easy. So what do

32:51

you think is the amount of

32:54

evidence that you require in order

32:56

to silence these people? Or do

32:58

these people, no matter what it

33:00

is, even if you present an

33:02

act, if you pull a UFO

33:04

out of the ocean? Oh no,

33:06

I think eventually if I have

33:08

enough data, there would be no

33:11

way for them. So that's why

33:13

I'm saying. What is that data

33:15

look like? Yeah, so. So right

33:17

now the Gala project is funded

33:19

a few million dollars. Okay. funding

33:21

at a level similar to other

33:23

scientific projects. Like, for example, the

33:26

search for dark matter, you know,

33:28

was funded a few billion dollars

33:30

in recent decades. They haven't found,

33:32

we haven't found anything yet. We

33:34

don't know what the dark matter

33:36

is made of, but that's the

33:38

nature of scientific inquiry, okay, and

33:40

the large hardron collider was funded

33:43

at 10 billion dollars. And we

33:45

only verified that the Higgs boson

33:47

exists. You know, that's a notion

33:49

from the 60s. Nothing major. We

33:51

didn't find the dark metal. We

33:53

didn't find super symmetry things that

33:55

were really motivating the study. And

33:58

now CERN is contemplating. a plan

34:00

to build the next accelerator that

34:02

will cost at least 17 billion

34:04

euros and it will be completed

34:06

by 2070. Just to show you,

34:08

they put a huge amount of

34:10

money, I mean the discovery of

34:13

the Higgs is a good thing,

34:15

the verification or the measurement of

34:17

known parameters of the standard model

34:19

of particle physics was important, but

34:21

the real goal was to discover

34:23

new physics that we haven't thought

34:25

about, it wasn't done. My point

34:27

is... We, you know,

34:29

this, the question of whether we

34:32

are alone, whether we have a

34:34

neighbor, is the most important question

34:36

in science. It will have a

34:39

huge impact on society. How can

34:41

we have zero federal funding right

34:43

now to this subject? I mean,

34:45

maybe not zero, maybe hundreds of

34:48

thousands, but I'm talking about billions

34:50

of dollars. And on the other

34:52

hand, the private sector could provide

34:55

this funding if people are organized

34:57

and... I have very specific details

34:59

as to what needs to be

35:01

done. You know, in the context

35:04

of the interstellar meteors, we have

35:06

another one, but if I had

35:08

the six and a half million

35:10

dollars, I could go there and

35:13

try to bring bigger pieces. I

35:15

can go to the site of

35:17

the second interstellar meteor that was

35:20

also uncovered with the same government

35:22

satellites. I have an idea of

35:24

a space telescope that could search.

35:26

For interstellar objects, these are objects

35:29

coming from outside the solar system.

35:31

The good news is we have

35:33

a lampost in our vicinity. It's

35:36

called the sun. The sun illuminates

35:38

the darkness of space. And so

35:40

it's easier to find your keys

35:42

under the lampost. So when objects

35:45

from outside the solar system come

35:47

close to the sun, they get

35:49

illuminated. So from a distance you

35:52

can see them and you can

35:54

also if they evaporate as a

35:56

result of coming too close to

35:58

the sun you can actually detect

36:01

what they are made of. And

36:03

so I wrote a paper a

36:05

month and a half ago just

36:07

explaining that a meter-sized telescope in

36:10

space could detect every five hours

36:12

a new object that comes within

36:14

the orbit of mercury around the

36:17

sun, which is three times closer

36:19

to the sun than the earth

36:21

is, just because the sun illuminates

36:23

such objects so brightly, and I'm

36:26

talking about objects that objects that

36:28

are objects. of the order of

36:30

a meter in size. Oh, Moamua

36:33

was 100 meters in size, the

36:35

size of a football field, bigger

36:37

than Starship, you know, our biggest

36:39

rocket that we ever... So here

36:42

I'm saying there are many more

36:44

smaller objects than big objects. I

36:46

mean, we launched only smaller objects.

36:49

So just doing the math, every

36:51

five hours there should be such

36:53

an object coming from interstellar space.

36:55

into the region where the orbit

36:58

of mercury is and we should

37:00

be able to see it with

37:02

the space telescope. So I have

37:04

specific things that I would have

37:07

done if I had the billions

37:09

of dollars to invest in the

37:11

space telescope and you know it's

37:14

really a question of priority. Right

37:16

now the astronomy community decided that

37:18

the biggest priority is the so-called

37:20

habitable world observatory. to be constructed

37:23

by 2040 in the 2040s. So

37:25

we are talking 20 years from

37:27

now. It will cost more than

37:30

$10 billion. And the goal of

37:32

that observatory would be to find

37:34

microbes in the, you know, by

37:36

detecting the composition of atmospheres of

37:39

planets around other stars. So if

37:41

you see oxygen, you see water,

37:43

molecules that are indicative of life

37:46

here on Earth, we will have

37:48

some clues that maybe primitive life

37:50

microbes exist on those planets. But

37:52

I say... we should hedge our

37:55

bets. We don't know if only

37:57

microbes are out there, there might

37:59

be intelligent life, in which case

38:01

it might be even easier to

38:04

figure out... Dice and Fears or...

38:06

No, I mean if we were

38:08

to discover a gadget in the

38:11

vicinity of Earth or even a

38:13

just-paced trash, you know, we are

38:15

producing a... you can imagine space

38:17

trash being removed from planetary systems

38:20

by the evolution of the star,

38:22

when the star becomes very bright

38:24

or produces much more wind, much

38:27

stronger wind, it can carry out

38:29

all the technological debris that a

38:31

civilization produced. It doesn't need to

38:33

be the civilization launching things all

38:36

the way out of the planetary

38:38

system that... was its birthplace. And

38:40

so my point is, there could

38:42

be a lot of space trash

38:45

around it. We haven't really looked,

38:47

except for the past decade, we

38:49

discovered some interstellar objects. The Umu

38:52

was the first one. The meteor

38:54

was another one. The point is,

38:56

we haven't really explored what comes

38:58

into our backyard. And we might

39:01

find a tennis ball that was

39:03

thrown by a neighbor. We need

39:05

to invest in my opinion. 10%

39:08

of the funding in the search

39:10

for technological signatures, as the astronomy

39:12

community is planning to spend on

39:14

biological signatures. Out here, there's no

39:17

one way of doing things. No

39:19

one written rules and no shortage

39:21

of adventure. Because out here, the

39:24

only requirement is having fun. Bank

39:26

of America invites kids 6 to

39:28

18 to golf with us. For

39:30

a limited time sign them up

39:33

for a free one-year membership giving

39:35

them access to discounted t-tons at

39:37

thousands of courses. Learn more at

39:39

Bank of America.com/golf with us. What

39:42

would you like the power to

39:44

do? Bank of America. at us

39:46

and Mobile Let Us Do It

39:49

Pretty Much Anywhere. Now Generative AI

39:51

lets us communicate with technology in

39:53

our own language using our own

39:55

senses. But figuring it all out

39:58

when you're living through it is

40:00

a totally different story. Welcome to

40:02

Leading the Shift, a new podcast

40:05

for Microsoft Azure. I'm your host,

40:07

Susan at Linger. In each episode,

40:09

leaders will share what they're learning

40:11

to help you navigate all this

40:14

change with confidence. Please join us.

40:16

Listen and subscribe wherever you get

40:18

your podcasts. Let's say in a

40:21

perfect scenario hypothetically speaking that you

40:23

had this funding right that that

40:25

you had all the tools all

40:27

the telescopes all the Everything to

40:30

collect all the data that you

40:32

wanted to collect What what does

40:34

that look like where you have

40:36

a perfect scenario? where you capture

40:39

something incredible, how much of that

40:41

data needs to be collected for

40:43

something to change. Because the way

40:46

that I see it currently, that

40:48

we're gathering semblance of data right

40:50

now, but even that, even statements

40:52

such as like, I worked on

40:55

a UFO or there's a UFO

40:57

crash that happened, or there were

40:59

alien bodies, like all of these

41:02

things which are massive statements, but

41:04

even that, I mean... I feel

41:06

like even if they produced a

41:08

body or a piece of a

41:11

UFO, an actual piece of UFO,

41:13

a lot of people still wouldn't...

41:15

No, I do believe that once

41:18

the evidence is tangible, if I

41:20

can actually present it, there wouldn't

41:22

be any doubt. You think so?

41:24

Yeah, yeah. Definitely. So I think

41:27

at the moment as far as

41:29

I'm concerned from a scientific point,

41:31

either the government has something, so

41:33

I would encourage them to share

41:36

it with me. I'm not signed

41:38

on any NDA at the moment

41:40

and on disclosure agreement. Nobody showed

41:43

me something that is convincing as

41:45

of now. It may well be

41:47

that they have something in their

41:49

possession and I would like to

41:52

see it before I say anything.

41:54

But the other approach, I mean

41:56

we don't need to rely on

41:59

the US government to tell us.

42:01

outside the solar system. You know,

42:03

the sky is not classified, the

42:05

oceans are not classified. So in

42:08

that context, if something exists, we

42:10

would see it, okay, because the

42:12

government is not focused on this

42:14

matter. They just want to, you

42:17

know, protect the nation from... Yeah,

42:19

exactly. So my day job is

42:21

really what lies outside the solar

42:24

system and all I need is

42:26

funding and I know exactly what

42:28

needs to be done. So at

42:30

the moment it's limited by funding,

42:33

if we had the level of

42:35

funding that is needed, then we

42:37

can move forward. Now my complaint

42:40

about the astronomy community is that

42:42

when people say it's an extraordinary

42:44

claim that requires extraordinary evidence, they

42:46

don't really put, they're not seeking.

42:49

They're not seeking. the evidence they're

42:51

not putting funding into this research

42:53

because they already assume that they

42:56

know the answer or they say

42:58

it's too speculative but you know

43:00

exo the existence of exoplanets plants

43:02

outside the solar system was considered

43:05

speculative when I started doing astrophysics

43:07

about 40 years ago and People

43:09

just didn't look at the right

43:11

places. You know, there was a

43:14

paper by an astronomer named Otto

43:16

Struve from 1952 who said that

43:18

if a planet like Jupiter happens

43:21

to be close to a star

43:23

like the sun, we could easily

43:25

detect it because it would move

43:27

the star back and forth. It

43:30

would block a significant fraction of

43:32

the light if it happens to

43:34

orbit just in front of the

43:37

face of the stars as it

43:39

moves around. And people just ignore

43:41

that. And for, you know, 40

43:43

years, not much time was allocated

43:46

on telescopes to looking for such

43:48

planets, because people said, we understand

43:50

why Jupiter is very far from

43:53

the sun. We have an understanding,

43:55

and it must, you know, if

43:57

it exists elsewhere, it must be

43:59

for that reason, and it will

44:02

never be close to the star.

44:04

And then in 1995, there was

44:06

a discovery of a planet, you

44:08

know, so-called hot Jupiter, Jupiter that

44:11

is close to the star, and

44:13

that led to a Nobel Prize.

44:15

And I looked at the discovery

44:18

paper, they didn't really cite Otto

44:20

Struven. It was completely ignored. Now

44:22

you might say, well, eventually it

44:24

was discovered, yeah, but it took

44:27

40 years. So there is, when

44:29

you suppress the study of potentially

44:31

new frontier, just because you don't

44:34

believe that you have some prejudice

44:36

or you have some ideas... Classification.

44:38

Whatever it is, you know, then

44:40

you would never find the evidence.

44:43

So it remains as an extraordinary

44:45

claim. So my point is, first

44:47

of all, the fact that we

44:50

exist... is obviously accepted by everyone,

44:52

and that something like us exists

44:54

on planets that had similar conditions

44:56

being at the same distance from

44:59

their host star, you know, and

45:01

made of rock, and potentially having

45:03

an atmosphere. You know, there are

45:05

billions of planets like that based

45:08

on the latest statistics. And so

45:10

just arguing that something like us

45:12

existed. billions of years ago is

45:15

an ordinary claim. It's not extraordinary.

45:17

And I say billions of years

45:19

ago because most stars formed billions

45:21

of years before the sun. The

45:24

sun formed only in the last

45:26

one-third of cosmic history. So the

45:28

point is, I think it's an

45:31

ordinary claim. I think that we

45:33

are sort of in the middle

45:35

of the class, if you imagine

45:37

a class of intelligence civilization. And

45:40

moreover, that requires ordinary evidence, but

45:42

to find the evidence, we just

45:44

need... funding and scientists who are

45:46

willing to do it. I'm willing

45:49

to do it. I have a

45:51

team of people willing to work

45:53

on it. The only limitation is...

45:56

And the mainstream of astronomy is

45:58

not funding it at the level

46:00

of billions of dollars. That's the

46:02

issue. They're funding the search for

46:05

microbes with the argument that microbes

46:07

appeared on earth very early. Okay?

46:09

But, okay, so indeed microbes might

46:12

be much more prevalent, you know,

46:14

everywhere. The issue is that to

46:16

find evidence for them is very

46:18

difficult because they affect in a

46:21

very subtle way the composition of

46:23

the atmosphere of a planet. in

46:25

a way that you might not

46:28

be able to distinguish. You need

46:30

more sophisticated instruments to even pick

46:32

up signatures of that. Well, it's

46:34

very difficult to do that, but

46:37

also the... You think it's easier

46:39

to look for extraterrestrial technology than

46:41

it is to look for microbes?

46:43

Well, if you find a gadget,

46:46

not only tells you that life

46:48

exists out there, but also that

46:50

it's intelligent, so even though it

46:53

might be rarer than microbes, if

46:55

you're finding it... and interpreting it

46:57

might be easier just because it

46:59

may be targeting let's say the

47:02

earth or even if it's just

47:04

space trash you can easily distinguish

47:06

it from a natural origin you

47:09

know and you can say that's

47:11

a piece of technology that we

47:13

didn't produce so my point is

47:15

we should hedge our bets whenever

47:18

you invest you need to you

47:20

know given the fact that for

47:22

example in the context of dark

47:25

matter we searched for 50 years

47:27

didn't you know with laboratory experiments

47:29

looking at the sky haven't figured

47:31

out the nature of dark matter

47:34

billions of dollars it's not as

47:36

if we were always successful when

47:38

we invested in searches so we

47:40

might search for microbes we might

47:43

find them we might not but

47:45

If you invest more than $10

47:47

billion in one direction, you should

47:50

at least invest, let's say, 10%

47:52

of that in a different direction

47:54

because it might be more productive.

47:56

I agree. And so unfortunately it's

47:59

right now the number is not

48:01

a few billions, it's zero. And

48:03

I... say that's a completely insane

48:06

approach to the subject. Yeah, yeah,

48:08

no, definitely. I think I think

48:10

most of us would agree that

48:12

we would love to see, you

48:15

know, funding in that direction. You

48:17

know, speaking of all this, you

48:19

know, you'd mentioned just a little

48:21

bit before of like detecting these

48:24

things if we put them on

48:26

satellites. You know, part of your

48:28

early, I think, academic career as

48:31

well. You were involved in such

48:33

work, correct? Yes. Yeah, you had,

48:35

you would think that during that

48:37

time, you would have seen something.

48:40

or you would have heard some

48:42

rumors or something, right? In that

48:44

type of line of work when

48:47

you're working on, you know, this

48:49

theoretical physics or plasma physics or,

48:51

you know, like you didn't hear

48:53

of any anybody talking about these

48:56

things that were, might have been

48:58

hidden or never came across? I

49:00

was not exposed to... these kinds

49:03

of reports and it's possible that

49:05

my line of research was completely

49:07

separate from that. Yeah, it was

49:09

just, because yeah, I mean, because

49:12

you hear, you hear things like

49:14

even Haimashad, who's, you know, the

49:16

father of the Israeli space program.

49:18

Right. But he was in the

49:21

intelligence, he was in the world.

49:23

Yes. So that's probably where he

49:25

heard. But I mean, he was

49:28

also responsible for putting 13 satellites

49:30

up in the space. Yeah, but

49:32

that was not the source of

49:34

information. to have had, I think

49:37

he was referring to things that

49:39

he had while being in the

49:41

intelligence. The intelligence, right? Okay, so

49:44

they would have compartmentalized that in

49:46

that case. And I was never

49:48

in the intelligence. Yeah, as far

49:50

as we know, no, I'm just

49:53

okay. So, okay, that's, I mean,

49:55

that's interesting, because there are rumors

49:57

too, like, because you'd mentioned somewhere

50:00

that I'd read that it was

50:02

basically the Israeli version of the

50:04

Star Wars initiative, which was started

50:06

by Reagan in like 80. 3

50:09

or 87. So that is of

50:11

my history. So I well first

50:13

I started I grew up on

50:15

a farm and was interested in

50:18

philosophy the existential questions that we

50:20

have and and then there is

50:22

obligatory military service in Israel so

50:25

at age 18 I had to

50:27

be drafted the question was whether

50:29

to be a soldier in the

50:31

field or you know with a

50:34

machine gun running and do something

50:36

that was closer to philosophy as

50:38

far as I'm concerned, which was

50:41

actually doing science, physics, and there

50:43

was a new program that started

50:45

a year before and they recruited

50:47

me as one of 25 people

50:50

out of thousands that were, you

50:52

know, going to the military that...

50:54

Because I was good in physics

50:57

and mathematics and I was the

50:59

first one to finish a PhD

51:01

in that program at age 24.

51:03

But I always wanted to do

51:06

research because it was closer to

51:08

my love, early love, to philosophy.

51:10

So I started a project that

51:12

was the first one to be

51:15

supported by Reagan's Star Wars initiative.

51:17

And it was just accelerating masses

51:19

to high speeds using electric energy

51:22

instead of chemical propellants. And that

51:24

was the first project funded by

51:26

the strategic defense initiative at the

51:28

time SDI or Star Wars. And

51:31

they funded us at a few

51:33

million dollars a year and did

51:35

this project and it was a

51:38

result of a visit by General

51:40

Abramson who came to Israel for

51:42

a visit and we presented the

51:44

project and he liked it. So

51:47

that's what brought me to the

51:49

US. We used to visit Washington

51:51

and then in one of the

51:53

visits I spent a day at

51:56

the Institute for Advanced Study at

51:58

Princeton where I was offered a

52:00

long-term fellow. five-year position under the

52:03

condition that I'll switch to astrophysics.

52:05

So one thing led to another

52:07

and I ended up being offered

52:09

a position at Harvard University, a

52:12

junior faculty position five

52:14

years after that and nobody

52:16

wanted it because the chance

52:18

of getting promoted there were very

52:21

small and but I took it

52:23

because I could always go back

52:25

to the farm. I had a

52:28

job security and then... And then

52:30

three years later I was tenured

52:32

because Cornell University offered me a

52:35

tenured appointment. And so, and so,

52:37

so, you know, at that point I

52:39

realized I'm, you know, already too

52:41

deep into this and, you know,

52:43

even though I'm married, I'm actually married

52:46

to my true love because there are

52:48

questions that are... very fundamental we can

52:50

address using the scientific method and sure

52:53

so that's where I am and that's

52:55

why I think differently I think about

52:57

the big picture more than most physicists

53:00

are astronomers and it just looks to

53:02

me like this is a subject that

53:04

should have received much more funding much

53:07

more attention so that's what I'm promoting

53:09

right now but before that I worked

53:11

on black holes a lot I founded

53:14

the black hole initiative at Harvard

53:16

University that Stephen Hawking came

53:18

for the inauguration of that

53:20

center and I also served

53:22

as chair of the astronomy

53:24

department for three terms, the

53:26

longest serving chair. I was,

53:28

I'm still the director of

53:30

the Institute for Theory and

53:32

Computation at Harvard. So I

53:34

had many leaderships worlds. I

53:37

was also sharing the board

53:39

on physics and astronomy for

53:41

the national academies. I was

53:43

a member of... the president's

53:45

council of advisors for

53:48

science and technology

53:50

policy in the

53:52

White House. And

53:54

so, you know, the reason

53:57

I'm, I'm not afraid of.

53:59

the headwind is because I

54:02

have a lot of experience. You

54:04

know, I know the scientific community,

54:06

I know that what I'm doing

54:08

is not very different from other

54:10

parts of science where we don't

54:12

know the answer in advance. So

54:14

that's the way you approach it.

54:17

And I think this is a

54:19

subject the public cares a lot

54:21

about and we should therefore address

54:23

it scientifically. I think, you know,

54:26

a lot of scientists just avoid

54:28

it because it's... risky. We don't

54:30

know the answer in advance and

54:32

there is a huge interest from

54:35

the public so they try to

54:37

avoid that sentiment. And I see

54:39

it as a great benefit because,

54:42

you know, science is funded by

54:44

taxpayers' money and therefore we

54:46

should listen to what the

54:49

public is interested in. In

54:51

fact, we should work on the subject

54:53

that the public cares about. You know,

54:55

when you look at what you're getting

54:58

out of it versus what you're putting

55:00

in and the implications of this being

55:02

real versus the amount of evidence that

55:05

exists, which isn't much physical evidence, but

55:07

the implication is far outweigh anything because

55:09

even if we have 1% evidence, the

55:12

implications change everything, right? So it's worth

55:14

putting a lot of eggs in that

55:16

basket. Just think about Moses, who in

55:19

the, according to the biblical story in

55:21

the Old Testament, he witnessed the

55:23

burning bush and that convinced... him

55:25

of a superhuman entity that he

55:27

called God. And if we were

55:29

to show Moses a cell phone,

55:31

I think he would have been much more

55:33

impressed than a bush that

55:36

is burning without being consumed. And

55:38

also the cell phone would have

55:40

served a very important role because

55:43

Moses went for four years in

55:45

the desert before he got to the...

55:47

close to the promised land. With

55:49

a GPS system of a cell

55:51

phone, he would have spent much

55:53

less time and would have gotten

55:55

there within a few weeks. All

55:58

I'm trying to say is that fine. a

56:00

piece of technology that

56:02

is far more advanced than we

56:04

produced could fill us with O

56:06

in a similar way that Moses

56:08

was filled with O. It will

56:10

not, you know, just like the

56:12

cell phone, the cell phone is

56:14

produced by humans, not by superhuman

56:17

intelligence, it's just a higher level

56:19

of science and technology that allowed

56:21

us to make it. And if

56:23

someone else in our cosmic neighborhood

56:25

had more than a century, we

56:27

just had one century since quantum

56:29

mechanics was discovered, you know, it

56:31

was exactly a century ago. And

56:33

nowadays, all the chips that are

56:36

manufactured for artificial intelligence, they are...

56:38

based on our understanding of quantum

56:40

mechanics that is only one century

56:42

old. And so just think about

56:44

it, what if we had a

56:46

thousand years, a million years, or

56:48

maybe a billion years of science,

56:50

how far can we go? Yeah, even

56:52

just another hundred years because it

56:54

seems really exponential at this point.

56:56

Oh yeah. You know, that's something

56:58

I often ponder too is like

57:00

when we see or hear about

57:02

these reports of these crafts doing

57:04

these incredible things, you think to

57:06

yourself, well, the way that technology

57:08

is doubling down, especially propulsion technology,

57:10

if you look at, you know,

57:12

we went from wood burning to

57:14

coal burning to, you know, and

57:16

then nuclear and whatever the next

57:19

step is there, but it's exponential.

57:21

The one caveat is that as

57:23

AI systems get smarter,

57:25

humans get dumber. Because

57:27

the tasks that were

57:29

done by humans before,

57:31

that it's just like

57:34

an athlete exercising, obviously

57:36

the muscles are in

57:38

good shape. But if

57:40

we just give those

57:42

tasks to AI systems,

57:44

our brain will be

57:46

less capable. It will

57:48

shrink. It will shrink.

57:50

So actually when people

57:52

estimate the time when

57:54

artificial intelligence will overtake

57:56

human intelligence, they might be

57:59

over-est. how long it will

58:01

be because humans will get

58:03

dumber very soon. Now, you

58:05

know, I was actually in

58:07

Ecker Island, I had the

58:10

lunch with Richard Branson a

58:12

week ago, and they were

58:14

serving chicken there, and someone

58:16

said that, you know, that's

58:18

what they eat, because it's

58:20

very good for your diet.

58:23

And I said, the

58:25

only reason that we

58:27

are serving chicken. on

58:29

the menu is because

58:31

we think that chickens

58:33

are less intelligent. Imagine

58:35

putting an implant, an

58:37

AI implant in a

58:39

chicken's brain so that

58:41

it makes it much

58:43

smarter. We would have

58:45

reservations of eating a

58:47

chicken that is as

58:49

smart as we are, right?

58:52

And the reason it's important

58:54

to consider that is because

58:56

imagine aliens arriving at our

58:58

planet, they could serve us

59:00

for their lunch. Yeah, and that's

59:02

one of the big arguments

59:04

too is like, you know, you think of...

59:06

These stories like like John Mac covered

59:08

and everything else You know that they're coming

59:11

here and they're doing these terrible experiments. You're

59:13

like what is that so different from what

59:15

we're doing to the species on this planet

59:18

like the idea is definitely viable The only

59:20

problem that I have with what John Mac

59:22

was doing is that he relied on people

59:24

I mean if something is out there we

59:27

should be able to document it right just

59:29

like we do so I'm taking the approach

59:31

of FIFA Okay, it doesn't go around

59:33

ask the players. It just looks at

59:35

data from cameras and figures it out.

59:37

So what do you make of like

59:40

the theoretical stuff like let's say like

59:42

the gravity A, gravity B idea from

59:44

Bob Lazar. He has this idea that

59:46

there are two types of gravity, they

59:48

behave in waves and that gravity A

59:50

is this sort of, well gravity B

59:52

is like the planet, you know, the

59:55

general gravity and then gravity A

59:57

is this gravity that's manufactured.

59:59

that you can increase at

1:00:02

a point to sort of

1:00:04

snap forward? Well, what we

1:00:06

know about gravity is what

1:00:08

Albert Einstein summarized in his

1:00:11

theory of generality. Now, there could

1:00:13

be things that go beyond

1:00:15

the technologies that we possess.

1:00:17

I mean, so when we

1:00:20

launch spacecraft, we are just responding

1:00:22

to the standard gravity that,

1:00:24

you know, the Earth, the

1:00:26

Sun, planets, any other body

1:00:29

generates. And as far as

1:00:31

we know, there are only positive

1:00:33

masses that produce gravity. Gravity is

1:00:35

attractive. You know, that was the

1:00:37

idea of Newton, you know, he

1:00:39

saw the apple falling and realized,

1:00:42

oh yeah, there is a gravitational

1:00:44

force pulling it towards the earth.

1:00:46

Now, it turns out that's not

1:00:48

the full story because we see

1:00:50

the universe expanding, but the

1:00:52

expansion is not slowing down the

1:00:55

way the apple... I mean, if you

1:00:57

throw an apple up, it

1:00:59

will fall, it will deseller,

1:01:01

slow down. But the universe

1:01:03

is accelerating its expansion. It's

1:01:05

as if you threw the

1:01:07

apple up and it will

1:01:09

move faster and faster as

1:01:11

it goes away from you.

1:01:13

That's like repulsive gravity. And

1:01:15

according to Einstein, it's possible

1:01:17

to get an effect of

1:01:19

repulsive gravity. If the vacuum

1:01:21

itself has some mass density,

1:01:23

that's called, that was... termed

1:01:25

by Einstein the cosmological constant.

1:01:27

And as of last

1:01:29

week, there is some

1:01:31

preliminary evidence that indicates

1:01:34

that it's not really a

1:01:36

constant maybe, maybe it's evolving.

1:01:38

But at any event, you

1:01:41

can get repulsive gravity on

1:01:43

average in the universe at

1:01:45

large. The question is, can you

1:01:48

bottle that? Can you create a

1:01:50

negative mass? Because if you could...

1:01:52

Just imagine a positive mass and

1:01:54

a negative mass next to each

1:01:56

other. The positive mass would pull

1:01:58

the negative mass before. because it

1:02:01

has attractive gravity. The negative

1:02:03

mass will push away the

1:02:05

positive mass. And so they

1:02:07

will move together, accelerating,

1:02:10

both of them, together, and they

1:02:12

would accelerate all the way to

1:02:14

the speed of light without any

1:02:16

fuel. You don't need any

1:02:18

fuel for that. It's just

1:02:21

a result of the existence

1:02:23

of repulsive gravity, if you

1:02:25

were, to bottle the... the

1:02:27

reason you may ask okay where is

1:02:29

the energy of the motion coming from well

1:02:32

if you have a positive mass and negative

1:02:34

mass the total energy is zero the

1:02:37

total kinetic and nothing's happening so but

1:02:39

no something here I mean the two

1:02:41

of them I mean if you were

1:02:43

to sit on let's say you have you

1:02:45

are sitting on earth yeah and next to earth

1:02:47

you put a negative mass earth you know we

1:02:49

would but the action reactions canceling out

1:02:51

well it's we would accelerate together

1:02:54

with this negative mass up to

1:02:56

this very close to the speed

1:02:58

of light, no fuel needed, and

1:03:00

you would not feel any problem

1:03:02

living on that planet because the

1:03:04

acceleration would be comparable to 1G,

1:03:06

the one that we usually sense.

1:03:08

And if you accelerate for 1G

1:03:10

for a year, you get very

1:03:12

close to the speed of light.

1:03:14

Actually, and after that you get

1:03:16

extremely close to the speed of

1:03:18

light. So in fact, you can

1:03:21

go with such a vehicle, if

1:03:23

it existed, you can go throughout

1:03:25

the entire observable universe in your

1:03:27

lifetime, within several decades, because you

1:03:29

will get so close to the

1:03:31

speed of light, that light would

1:03:33

slow down in your frame of

1:03:36

reference. So even though billions of

1:03:38

years are passing in the rest

1:03:40

of the universe, in your... accelerating

1:03:42

frame which is just accelerating at

1:03:44

1G you know it's nothing I

1:03:46

mean our body can tolerate that

1:03:49

easily you will actually cross billions

1:03:51

of light years and time would

1:03:53

tick much more slowly in your

1:03:55

frame anyway this is just one

1:03:58

example of a situation where

1:04:00

Gravity follows Einstein's theory, except

1:04:02

that there is some new ingredient,

1:04:04

like negative mass. We don't know

1:04:06

if such a thing exists. And

1:04:09

the same, you know, if such

1:04:11

a thing exists, you could show

1:04:13

that you can build a time

1:04:15

machine also, that you can go

1:04:18

back in time. If I had

1:04:20

access to a time machine, I

1:04:22

would go back to the second

1:04:25

world, just before the Second World

1:04:27

War, and shoot the Hitler. by

1:04:29

which I might save the lives

1:04:31

of six million Jews, you know,

1:04:34

that would be my preference. The

1:04:36

fact that it never happened in

1:04:38

our, you know... In our timeline?

1:04:40

Yeah, means that no Jew had

1:04:43

an access to a time of

1:04:45

shit. Or, yeah, but then, you

1:04:47

know, brings up the whole other

1:04:50

bunch of paradoxes when you start

1:04:52

going down that road, like the

1:04:54

multiverse idea or, you know... There's

1:04:56

other theories that if you were

1:04:59

to go back and kill patient

1:05:01

zero who had COVID, then you

1:05:03

would be patient zero and you

1:05:06

would start COVID. There are logical

1:05:08

issues and that's why Stephen Hawking

1:05:10

argued that perhaps there is some

1:05:12

censorship. He called it a new

1:05:15

principle that... allows, it's called the

1:05:17

chronology conjecture, that allows history. You

1:05:19

can never violate the chronology. It

1:05:21

would always fix itself. Somehow it

1:05:24

will be prevented. Now, one idea

1:05:26

that was suggested already by Einstein

1:05:28

and Rosen, Nathan Rosen, his postdoc

1:05:31

back in the 1930s, was Maybe

1:05:33

you can build a bridge that

1:05:35

will connect different regions of space

1:05:37

and traverse the distance through a

1:05:40

sort of a tunnel, a wormhole.

1:05:42

I mean... One way to think

1:05:44

of this is imagine, you know,

1:05:47

two points on a surface of

1:05:49

a balloon. And if you were

1:05:51

to pass from one point to

1:05:53

the other without going across the

1:05:56

surface, it would be a shorter

1:05:58

path. So at any event, they

1:06:00

came up with a solution of

1:06:02

a wormhole, but then it was

1:06:05

found that such a solution is

1:06:07

not stable within Einstein's theory of

1:06:09

gravity. And it basically snaps off.

1:06:12

before you're able to traverse the

1:06:14

wormhole. And even if you do

1:06:16

that at the speed of light,

1:06:18

it snaps too quickly. And then

1:06:21

it was realized that perhaps you

1:06:23

can stabilize this wormhole again if

1:06:25

you had access to exotic material

1:06:27

that produces negative gravity. Kind of

1:06:30

a negative mass. Like element 115

1:06:32

type deal? No, no. I'm still

1:06:34

talking about negative mass. No, what

1:06:37

Bob Lazar talks about. If he

1:06:39

knew how to do it, if

1:06:41

he had access to any real

1:06:43

material or data that he could

1:06:46

demonstrate, he would have gotten the

1:06:48

number prize. You know, that would

1:06:50

have been new physics. I think

1:06:53

that was the problem though is

1:06:55

that he didn't have, like once

1:06:57

he was out, he didn't have

1:06:59

access to, you know, working with

1:07:02

that material again. But he can

1:07:04

then suggest how... how this works,

1:07:06

you know, and he didn't write

1:07:08

any scientific paper that I saw

1:07:11

that looks convincing. So at the

1:07:13

moment, just again, it's just like

1:07:15

these eyewitness testimonies. If you don't,

1:07:18

you know, where is the beef,

1:07:20

you know, if you don't see

1:07:22

the actual thing, people can invent

1:07:24

lots of stories. We know that

1:07:27

throughout human history that people were

1:07:29

telling stories that were not true.

1:07:31

Okay. That includes the story of

1:07:33

the Vatican, you know. In 1992,

1:07:36

they admitted that Galileo Galileo was

1:07:38

right. And that was, you know,

1:07:40

350 years after he died. He

1:07:43

didn't help him. It was 20,

1:07:45

you know, two decades after human...

1:07:47

landed on the moon. So, you

1:07:49

know, at that point it was

1:07:52

ridiculous for them to insist that

1:07:54

the Earth is at the center

1:07:56

of the universe. So my point

1:07:59

is, it's not about someone telling

1:08:01

you a story. It's more about

1:08:03

the evidence. That's the key, the

1:08:05

data, the evidence that will be

1:08:08

beyond any reasonable doubt that nobody

1:08:10

can dispute. Everyone can be the

1:08:12

referee. and it would be so

1:08:14

clear and abundant that there will

1:08:17

be no way out. That's what

1:08:19

we need. No room for story.

1:08:21

Yeah, no room for storytelling. And,

1:08:24

you know, we can potentially get

1:08:26

that evidence. In the context of

1:08:28

science, what I'm doing, it's just

1:08:30

a matter of investing the funds

1:08:33

to do the research. The fact

1:08:35

that scientists do not have such

1:08:37

evidence is simply because they haven't

1:08:40

done the work. Okay? And almost

1:08:42

all of them are not willing

1:08:44

to do the work. I'm willing

1:08:46

to do the context of... government

1:08:49

if they do have something just

1:08:51

because they monitor the sky for

1:08:53

so many decades you know if

1:08:55

they do have the evidence I

1:08:58

want to see it okay I

1:09:00

don't need people to tell me

1:09:02

that they have the evidence that's

1:09:05

not enough wouldn't it make sense

1:09:07

that they wouldn't show you no

1:09:09

it doesn't make any sense you

1:09:11

think you think that they don't

1:09:14

have like a good enough reason

1:09:16

to keep it hidden the only

1:09:18

reason I can see is if

1:09:20

they haven't figured it out, they

1:09:23

still suspect it might be from

1:09:25

an adversarial nation. So in that

1:09:27

case, when they admit they have

1:09:30

something, they cannot figure out, it

1:09:32

may show their weakness. Wouldn't that

1:09:34

look the same if that adversary

1:09:36

was potentially extraterrestrial? Wouldn't that look

1:09:39

identical to the situation? Because let

1:09:41

me give you an example. Suppose

1:09:43

you live in a house, okay,

1:09:46

and you see all these other

1:09:48

houses that look just like yours

1:09:50

on the street. Sure. And your

1:09:52

family members, in my case, it's

1:09:55

my colleagues, keep saying, we don't

1:09:57

know if they have any residents,

1:09:59

these houses. be completely empty. It's

1:10:01

an extraordinary claim to say that

1:10:04

there are residents in these houses,

1:10:06

even though the houses look just

1:10:08

like yours. And then one day

1:10:11

you go out to your backyard

1:10:13

and you find them, you know,

1:10:15

an empty trash bag or a

1:10:17

tennis ball that was that came

1:10:20

from a neighbor's yard. And then

1:10:22

you realize, well, actually, you know,

1:10:24

I might have a neighbor. you

1:10:26

sit at dinner and a dinner

1:10:29

table and you have two options

1:10:31

either to inform your family that

1:10:33

you found this thing and that

1:10:36

you might we might have neighbors

1:10:38

or to keep it quiet and

1:10:40

my choice would be very simple

1:10:42

I would immediately tell all my

1:10:45

family members about it because it

1:10:47

doesn't make any sense to hide

1:10:49

such a fact because one day

1:10:52

the neighbor will knock on the

1:10:54

door or come to your backyard

1:10:56

or affect your... your home in

1:10:58

different ways and everyone should be

1:11:01

aware of that because that's part

1:11:03

of reality. You know, we need

1:11:05

to recognize that we live in

1:11:07

a neighborhood where there are neighbors.

1:11:10

Sure. So, but also like, you

1:11:12

know, the implications of this type

1:11:14

of technology if detected by a

1:11:17

single government, if retrieved by a

1:11:19

single government, and let's say there

1:11:21

is some... hypothetically some type of

1:11:23

Cold War situation where they're all

1:11:26

trying to back engineer the same

1:11:28

tech but nobody's doing it successfully.

1:11:30

Like that would make for a

1:11:33

situation where you don't want to

1:11:35

show your hand. Well, but you

1:11:37

know we had wars for the

1:11:39

past century and I haven't seen

1:11:42

any technological gadget that goes beyond

1:11:44

what we understand with our science.

1:11:46

Well it did with the Manhattan

1:11:48

Project at the time. Not really.

1:11:51

I mean nuclear physics was understood

1:11:53

before. I would, you know, the

1:11:55

most plausible scenario for me is

1:11:58

that the government may have something

1:12:00

that they cannot figure out. That's

1:12:02

the only thing. So they keep

1:12:04

it under wraps because, you know,

1:12:07

they just classified it as something.

1:12:09

is not fully understood and they

1:12:11

just don't want to expose what

1:12:13

we know what we don't know

1:12:16

and maybe you know maybe there

1:12:18

are some corporations that are looking

1:12:20

into it and they want to

1:12:23

get paid so they don't figure

1:12:25

it out either and it sits

1:12:27

somewhere. That's the only plausible scenario

1:12:29

but since I haven't seen that

1:12:32

thing. I would love to see

1:12:34

it, you know, I would, because,

1:12:36

you know, if they have something,

1:12:39

then I'm wasting my time. You

1:12:41

know, for me, it's really the...

1:12:43

the discovery that matters, it's not

1:12:45

who does it and when, you

1:12:48

know, it's just let's figure it

1:12:50

out. And, you know, if we

1:12:52

search and not find anything, then

1:12:54

I think we, just like in

1:12:57

the case of the Search for

1:12:59

Dark Matter, we learn something out

1:13:01

of that. Yeah, there's, you know,

1:13:04

there's the search, I think it's

1:13:06

important to have both of those.

1:13:08

I think the search is important

1:13:10

what you're doing and, you're doing,

1:13:13

and, you know, using, amazing you

1:13:15

know efforts into documenting and tracing

1:13:17

data and trying to find you

1:13:20

know observables but also to have

1:13:22

you know people knocking on doors

1:13:24

and kicking down doors and and

1:13:26

you know and subpoenaing and like

1:13:29

hey let's see what you got

1:13:31

open up the vault like we

1:13:33

want to see if you're you

1:13:35

know actually have some exotic even

1:13:38

if it's just metals you know

1:13:40

or whatever that or maybe even

1:13:42

satellite data or other data that

1:13:45

some some people in government talked

1:13:47

about. that was released, like in

1:13:49

2017 and all that stuff, what

1:13:51

do you make of that? The

1:13:54

data that was released was not

1:13:56

sufficiently convincing, but it's quite possible

1:13:58

the government has additional data that

1:14:00

was discussing behind closed doors. That

1:14:03

was more sensitive, a little bit

1:14:05

more revealing. I mean the official

1:14:07

statement comes from the all domain

1:14:10

anomaly resolution office and you know

1:14:12

they said that 97% of all

1:14:14

the objects or all the reports

1:14:16

that they look into first of

1:14:19

all they say they have access

1:14:21

to everything and then they say

1:14:23

97% of what we looked into

1:14:26

can be explained as mundane you

1:14:28

know things like pros and balloons

1:14:30

and then there is a small

1:14:32

subset of reports that keep coming

1:14:35

up and they cannot figure out

1:14:37

okay and so To me as

1:14:39

a scientist, you know, the Galileo

1:14:41

project is already having data on

1:14:44

millions of objects in the sky,

1:14:46

okay, much more than anyone else.

1:14:48

had before. And it just takes

1:14:51

time for us to go through

1:14:53

it. We need triangulation. We need

1:14:55

multiple units that look at the

1:14:57

same objects so we can figure

1:15:00

out the distance. We will hopefully

1:15:02

have that by this summer. We

1:15:04

have one observatory that was the

1:15:06

initial observatory that we developed at

1:15:09

Harvard, that just to get everything

1:15:11

working. And it looks at the

1:15:13

entire sky in the infrared optical

1:15:16

radio and audio. And then we

1:15:18

analyze the data with machine learning

1:15:20

software so we can... look for

1:15:22

any unfamiliar objects, objects that are

1:15:25

not drones, balloons, satellites, airplanes, leaves,

1:15:27

clouds. So we automate. And then

1:15:29

once the system identifies objects of

1:15:32

interest, we will very closely look

1:15:34

at them. But the issue is

1:15:36

that we need triangulation to figure

1:15:38

out distances, because without distance, you

1:15:41

don't know the actual speed of

1:15:43

the object, you don't know the

1:15:45

actual acceleration. We are building two

1:15:47

other observatories that should be completed

1:15:50

by this summer, summer 2025. One

1:15:52

in Pennsylvania, another one in Nevada.

1:15:54

And I got the funding for

1:15:57

both. And there is another observatory

1:15:59

perhaps within the next two years

1:16:01

that will be built in Indiana.

1:16:03

That's exciting. In a STEM education

1:16:06

center. That I see is very

1:16:08

important because the goal of that

1:16:10

one would be to educate young

1:16:13

adults about how exciting science. can

1:16:15

be. You know, the fact that

1:16:17

many scientists dismiss this subject and

1:16:19

are not attending to the interest

1:16:22

of the public has two negative

1:16:24

effects. First, this subject is not

1:16:26

being studied. We don't collect data.

1:16:28

The second is that it makes

1:16:31

science sound more boring and formal,

1:16:33

but in fact it's just following

1:16:35

your... childhood curiosity science allows you

1:16:38

to figure out the answers to

1:16:40

questions without waiting for the adults

1:16:42

in the room to tell you

1:16:44

the answer we don't need to

1:16:47

wait for the government we don't

1:16:49

need to wait for scientists to

1:16:51

tell us the answer we just

1:16:53

need to collect the data and

1:16:56

the point is once we have

1:16:58

good enough data we will be

1:17:00

able to demonstrate beyond any reasonable

1:17:03

doubt what's going on. Have you

1:17:05

found anything currently of interest? I

1:17:07

know that you need to triangulate

1:17:09

to get more data, but is

1:17:12

there anything that is exciting in

1:17:14

terms of things that you have

1:17:16

observed that might lead to a

1:17:19

really substantial discovery, or is it

1:17:21

all too preliminary? It's preliminary. My

1:17:23

hope, and I'm telling that to

1:17:25

my research team all the time,

1:17:28

that we can put limits on

1:17:30

how, you know, we can put

1:17:32

limits at the level of... one

1:17:34

part in a million right now.

1:17:37

I'm not talking about three percent

1:17:39

that arrow. Yeah, three percent is

1:17:41

pretty big. Yeah, one part in

1:17:44

a million it's much better. But

1:17:46

I'm telling my colleagues that in

1:17:48

the team that if we find

1:17:50

one object that seems really unusual,

1:17:53

then we will write a paper

1:17:55

about that and you will know

1:17:57

about that. If we write papers

1:17:59

only about statistics, it means that

1:18:02

we haven't found that object. I

1:18:04

see. I'm very much in line

1:18:06

with what you're suggesting and I

1:18:09

hope that we will report back.

1:18:11

So my hope is in 2025

1:18:13

we will have two new observatories

1:18:15

in interesting locations because Boston is

1:18:18

not really interesting. as far. We

1:18:20

just put it there because it's

1:18:22

close. So we can make sure

1:18:25

that everything works. But yeah, going

1:18:27

to Pennsylvania and Nevada could be

1:18:29

very exciting. And in addition, I

1:18:31

hope that we will get the

1:18:34

funding for the expedition to go

1:18:36

again and bring bigger pieces from

1:18:38

the interstellar meteor and go to

1:18:40

the second site of the second

1:18:43

interstellar meteor, which was closer to

1:18:45

Europe, actually. And then... I hope

1:18:47

that the Rubin Observatory in Chile

1:18:50

that will start operations in the

1:18:52

summer of 2025 will find more

1:18:54

objects like Ohmua. It has the

1:18:56

capability to find such an object

1:18:59

every few months for sure. Do

1:19:01

you, so there's this idea as

1:19:03

well now, have you met Chris

1:19:06

Bledsoe? No. Interesting, interesting guy where

1:19:08

he says, you know, he claims

1:19:10

to summon these orbs is what

1:19:12

it seems to be. Oh, yeah,

1:19:15

yeah, I heard about it. Yes.

1:19:17

Is there any interest in working

1:19:19

with someone who has these claims

1:19:21

to see if that can increase

1:19:24

the amount of... Data or the

1:19:26

the amount of like a because

1:19:28

the you know the problem with

1:19:31

observing anomalies that you don't know

1:19:33

when they happen Right, right, but

1:19:35

if you can control when they

1:19:37

happen, I mean it gives you

1:19:40

far more data. That would be

1:19:42

fantastic I mean Not him, but

1:19:44

there was another person who suggested

1:19:46

that and we gave it a

1:19:49

try there was nothing unusual. Yeah,

1:19:51

okay. Yeah And what do you

1:19:53

make of this like scionic talk

1:19:56

these days? There's this I don't

1:19:58

know if you're familiar there's a

1:20:00

a legend whistleblower named Jake Barber

1:20:02

who came out and talked about

1:20:05

some type of telepathic. Yeah sure

1:20:07

this this this this ionic sort

1:20:09

of telepathic interfacing with technology to

1:20:12

sort of bring them in or

1:20:14

invite them in and then microwave

1:20:16

canons to take them down. Yeah

1:20:18

you know I have nothing against

1:20:21

such proposals as long as they

1:20:23

work. Is that something you'd be

1:20:25

willing to? If such a person

1:20:27

wants to give it a try,

1:20:30

you're not opposed to it. No,

1:20:32

I mean, if it doesn't work,

1:20:34

you know, I'm very much driven

1:20:37

by whatever the evidence shows. And

1:20:39

people claim to, of course, we

1:20:41

don't want to waste our times,

1:20:43

but. It would be worth trying

1:20:46

it. I love that answer. I

1:20:48

think it's such a great outlook

1:20:50

on this subject because again, we're

1:20:52

met, you know, as people who

1:20:55

are seeking, you know, extraterrestrial life

1:20:57

and at some level want it

1:20:59

to be real, right? There's like,

1:21:02

there's a profound philosophical sort of

1:21:04

like level that I'm like, wow,

1:21:06

that would be amazing and it

1:21:08

would create awe and it would

1:21:11

be awe inspiring. Trying to not

1:21:13

let that, you know, confirmation bias

1:21:15

skew my... you know, direction too

1:21:18

much, but it is so fun

1:21:20

hearing someone who is not close

1:21:22

to the idea, but who's also

1:21:24

so closely connected to the mainstream

1:21:27

scientific community. And so, you know,

1:21:29

because I know my audience and

1:21:31

I know a lot of people

1:21:33

are going to say, well, what

1:21:36

about all the whistleblowers or what

1:21:38

about all the testimony of people

1:21:40

who said they saw a UFO

1:21:43

or all of this? And, you

1:21:45

know, what I'm hearing from you

1:21:47

is quite clear. It isn't that

1:21:49

you're against any of that. It's...

1:21:52

We need to see it, we

1:21:54

need to observe it, we need

1:21:56

to, and we need to validate

1:21:59

it. We need to validate it,

1:22:01

right? And I think it's amazing.

1:22:03

Just like someone, you want to

1:22:05

buy a used car and someone

1:22:08

tells you stories. I mean, that's

1:22:10

not good enough. You have to

1:22:12

bring it to a mechanic to

1:22:14

make sure the car works. Yeah,

1:22:17

yeah. I think that's a great

1:22:19

way of approaching the subject from

1:22:21

a scientific viewpoint, you know, personally.

1:22:24

I'm still heavily invested in stories.

1:22:26

The way to think of me

1:22:28

is not as a university professor,

1:22:30

it's more, you know, I'm just

1:22:33

trying to follow common sense. and

1:22:35

make my assertions based on evidence.

1:22:37

I'm trying to be as real

1:22:39

as possible. Of course, you can

1:22:42

take recreational drugs and imagine a

1:22:44

reality that doesn't exist, but that

1:22:46

will be in your head. What

1:22:49

I'm trying to understand is the

1:22:51

reality that we all share, meaning

1:22:53

that whenever we see it, we

1:22:55

will all see the same thing,

1:22:58

right? So if there is something

1:23:00

real in all of this subject,

1:23:02

we should be able. to get

1:23:05

very solid evidence that it's out

1:23:07

there and that's what I'm after.

1:23:09

Yeah. Yeah. It's interesting stuff. It's

1:23:11

an interesting time that we live

1:23:14

in that we're able to even

1:23:16

talk about observing these things in

1:23:18

a public light, I think, and

1:23:20

finding some support, you know, I

1:23:23

think is very important. Well, it's

1:23:25

a selection effect. You know, if

1:23:27

you leave it the wrong time

1:23:30

and you talk about things that

1:23:32

people around you do not agree

1:23:34

with, you don't survive for very

1:23:36

long. So... Is that part of

1:23:39

the reason you named this project,

1:23:41

the Galileo project, because of this

1:23:43

idea that Galileo Galilei, you know,

1:23:45

presented heliocentrism and was, you know,

1:23:48

was basically house arrested, you know,

1:23:50

because of this notion? Is that

1:23:52

how you see studying UAP? Do

1:23:55

you see... that kind of... Yeah,

1:23:57

interestingly in 2012, I was invited

1:23:59

to give a series of lectures

1:24:01

at the School and Normal Superior,

1:24:04

which is one of the most

1:24:06

prestigious institutions in Italy, in Pisa,

1:24:08

where Galileo worked, and it was

1:24:11

called the Cathedra Galiliana, and that...

1:24:13

That was a honor for them

1:24:15

to invite me and I gave

1:24:17

the talks and that was my

1:24:20

first introduction to his pioneering work

1:24:22

and he basically improved the ability

1:24:24

of a telescope that was invented

1:24:26

around the same time and was

1:24:29

able to see four points of

1:24:31

light around Jupiter, could see that

1:24:33

they're moving. meaning that not everything

1:24:36

in the sky is moving around

1:24:38

the earth. And that validated the

1:24:40

argument that Copernicus made before him.

1:24:42

And he obviously was making a

1:24:45

big fuss about it and the

1:24:47

church didn't like it and he

1:24:49

was putting house arrest. Just a

1:24:52

month ago I received a sculpture,

1:24:54

a bronze sculpture by one of

1:24:56

the most accomplished sculptors in the

1:24:58

US. His name is Greg Wyatt

1:25:01

and he made the sculptures that

1:25:03

are New York City in Washington,

1:25:05

the Arlington Cemetery is very celebrated

1:25:07

artists and he just decided to

1:25:10

donate to my office sculpture. titled

1:25:12

Galileo Galilee looking at the four

1:25:14

moons of Jupiter and I have

1:25:17

it in in my office he

1:25:19

will give me another sculpture and

1:25:21

some watercolors that he made and

1:25:23

so my office right now starts

1:25:26

looking like a museum I basically

1:25:28

removed all the file cabinets about

1:25:30

a couple of months ago and

1:25:32

Well, it's testimony that the work

1:25:35

I'm doing is inspiring also for

1:25:37

artists, because there is a poet

1:25:39

that just finished a book where

1:25:42

he dedicated many of the poems

1:25:44

to essays that I write on

1:25:46

medium.com where he was inspired to

1:25:48

write these poems. And there is

1:25:51

a playwright that wrote a play

1:25:53

about my work. is supposed to

1:25:55

be brought to my office from

1:25:58

Spain. It's resonating with a lot

1:26:00

of people. A lot of people,

1:26:02

there is a songwriter that wrote

1:26:04

a song. And I'm going actually

1:26:07

to meet with the most prominent

1:26:09

celebrities in Hollywood. and the most

1:26:11

accomplished entrepreneurs actually. Within a month

1:26:13

they wanted me to present my

1:26:16

research. So I will spend a

1:26:18

couple of days with all these

1:26:20

important people. I asked my wife

1:26:23

if it's okay for me to

1:26:25

have breakfast with Margot Robbie and

1:26:27

she said, yeah, definitely, have fun.

1:26:29

I guess you trust me. I

1:26:32

do get to see a lot

1:26:34

of interesting people and every day

1:26:36

I get people from the public

1:26:38

or otherwise interviews and that bring

1:26:41

ideas that I write about in

1:26:43

my essays on medium.com. I also

1:26:45

am finishing now or writing a

1:26:48

book about the expedition for MIT

1:26:50

Press. That hopefully will come out

1:26:52

in a year and a half

1:26:54

from now. We're gonna we're gonna

1:26:57

do maybe one more question then

1:26:59

we're gonna hop into some of

1:27:01

the questions from the audience just

1:27:04

there's a couple questions that they're

1:27:06

really eager to ask you about

1:27:08

but one last final note on

1:27:10

Galileo project just a fun tangential

1:27:13

thing as you walked into my

1:27:15

office you notice the Bob Lazar

1:27:17

poster yes you know I'm a

1:27:19

big fan of story I'm a

1:27:22

storyteller and I enjoy story but

1:27:24

I also you know my personal

1:27:26

belief is that although it might

1:27:29

not be the best evidence you

1:27:31

know person personally speaking for me

1:27:33

that human connection is very important

1:27:35

and very real when you know

1:27:38

I look in someone's eyes and

1:27:40

they're telling me something that they

1:27:42

believe is real you know personally

1:27:45

I take that is my own

1:27:47

ontological evidence that that forms my

1:27:49

reality right but obviously that doesn't

1:27:51

hold up in a in you

1:27:54

know scientific standards which well it

1:27:56

holds in courts in the court

1:27:58

it does hold up but but

1:28:00

scientific riggers exactly yeah I should

1:28:03

again say that You know, the

1:28:05

beauty about physics is that, you

1:28:07

know, when you learn something new

1:28:10

about how electrons behave. All the

1:28:12

electrons in the universe behave following

1:28:14

the same law physics, right? So

1:28:16

we've never seen an electron that

1:28:19

goes in a path that no

1:28:21

other electron ever went through given

1:28:23

the laws of electronics. And it

1:28:25

goes beyond that. It's not only

1:28:28

true throughout the entire universe, it's

1:28:30

also true throughout the history of

1:28:32

the universe, you know, the recombination

1:28:35

of elections and protons, 400,000 years

1:28:37

after the Big Bang, followed the

1:28:39

same rules as recombination of electrons

1:28:41

and protons in the laboratories on

1:28:44

earth. And you know, back then

1:28:46

it was a soup of elementary

1:28:48

particles that filled up the universe.

1:28:51

There is no free will. Electrons

1:28:53

can, for electrons, they cannot do

1:28:55

whatever they want. Now, this is

1:28:57

very different from people, right? Because

1:29:00

people, you know, can do unexpected

1:29:02

things. We know that because we

1:29:04

decide about societal laws and then

1:29:06

people break them. Okay, that's why

1:29:09

we have the court system. In

1:29:11

the court system, you know, we

1:29:13

punish people who deviated from the

1:29:16

law. So... And we do that

1:29:18

based on eyewitnesses and so forth.

1:29:20

But, you know, by the way,

1:29:22

that raises the whole question of,

1:29:25

you know, if we are made

1:29:27

of electrons and nuclei, you know,

1:29:29

in atoms and so forth, elementary

1:29:31

particles, how come we have free

1:29:34

will when these particles do not

1:29:36

have free will? And my answer

1:29:38

to that is that the human

1:29:41

brain is very complex, you know.

1:29:43

the AI systems we are currently

1:29:45

developing still have less number of

1:29:47

parameters than the number of synapses

1:29:50

in the human brain. So when

1:29:52

you have such a complex system

1:29:54

as the human brain, it's practically

1:29:57

unpredictable. You know, even three bodies,

1:29:59

according to Newton, You know, when

1:30:01

they move around, according to the

1:30:03

law of gravity, that Newton came

1:30:06

up with, they also show some

1:30:08

chaos. There is the inability to

1:30:10

predict the outcome from slight changes

1:30:12

in the initial conditions, even within

1:30:15

a three-body system. not to speak

1:30:17

about the complex architecture of the

1:30:19

human brain. So I think what

1:30:22

we call free will is simply

1:30:24

the inability to forecast what such

1:30:26

a complex system like the human

1:30:28

brain can do. I don't think

1:30:31

there is anything beyond electrons, protons

1:30:33

that make up the human brain.

1:30:35

But coming back to the difference

1:30:38

from the courtroom is that, you

1:30:40

know, we rely in assessing whether

1:30:42

someone... committed a crime we rely

1:30:44

on eyewitnesses and science has a

1:30:47

much higher standard and that is

1:30:49

based on instruments. And I should

1:30:51

say it's not easy to come

1:30:53

up with new physics because we

1:30:56

have so much data on everything

1:30:58

that happens that if there was

1:31:00

no physics it would be so

1:31:03

dramatic. It's possible that UAP exhibit

1:31:05

new physics because they were manufactured

1:31:07

by civilizations that had access to

1:31:09

much more science and technology, so

1:31:12

they developed things that we cannot

1:31:14

imagine. It's possible. But to make

1:31:16

sure that we understand what these

1:31:18

things are, we really need to

1:31:21

be flooded with data, which is

1:31:23

what I'm aiming at. I suppose

1:31:25

the catch-22 in all of this

1:31:28

is, you know, we rely on...

1:31:30

human observation for certain data that

1:31:32

we use in the courtrooms, but

1:31:34

then we rely on very structured

1:31:37

data that we rely in scientifically.

1:31:39

However, the people controlling science are

1:31:41

human. Yes. And so now we're

1:31:44

running into a problem that's inhibiting

1:31:46

the study of it, right? So

1:31:48

a lot of people I think...

1:31:50

The best way to remain ignorant

1:31:53

is... is to avoid the collection

1:31:55

of data. That's what the Vatican

1:31:57

wanted. The church wanted during the

1:31:59

days of Copernicus and Galileo not

1:32:02

to get more data. We don't

1:32:04

want to hear about it because

1:32:06

to maintain our political power, we

1:32:09

need to tell our believers that

1:32:11

the earth is at the center.

1:32:13

That was the dogma because if.

1:32:15

Earth is at the center, then

1:32:18

God pays attention to us all

1:32:20

the time. Imagine, I actually had

1:32:22

a meeting with a group of

1:32:24

people that is called the Christianity

1:32:27

today. They came to Harvard and

1:32:29

asked me to speak with them

1:32:31

about extraterritorial intelligence. And I tried

1:32:34

to explain that if we find

1:32:36

evidence for another civilization like ours,

1:32:38

They should not be worried about

1:32:40

it because I have two daughters.

1:32:43

And when the second one was

1:32:45

born, it didn't take away from

1:32:47

my love to the first one.

1:32:50

So thinking that God can pay

1:32:52

attention only to one civilization is

1:32:54

very demeaning. It basically says God

1:32:56

has a limited attention span. If

1:32:59

you really believe in God being

1:33:01

capable of everything, then there shouldn't

1:33:03

be any problem with having other

1:33:05

siblings. on exoplanets, you know, other,

1:33:08

and the only issue is that

1:33:10

if those other civilizations are much

1:33:12

more accomplished than we are, then

1:33:15

it might indicate that the parent,

1:33:17

you know, whoever that is, may

1:33:19

pay more attention to them than

1:33:21

to us because they're more talented.

1:33:24

That's the only kind of jealousy

1:33:26

you can have when you have

1:33:28

a sibling, but you know, I

1:33:31

mean, I think that it shouldn't

1:33:33

go against religion to imagine that

1:33:35

something like us exists. Sure. No,

1:33:37

I think that makes sense. I

1:33:40

just, I guess I just wish,

1:33:42

and I think I speak for

1:33:44

many people, that more scientists would

1:33:46

take this approach, and I think

1:33:49

if more scientists took the approach

1:33:51

that you took, we'd have, you

1:33:53

know, obviously way more information, and

1:33:56

possibly we would have already solved

1:33:58

this problem. funny thing because you

1:34:00

know I see like a dichotomy

1:34:02

here between you know Bob Lazar

1:34:05

who represents a little bit more

1:34:07

of the sort of story side

1:34:09

of it. It's not the practicing

1:34:11

scientists by the way. So you

1:34:14

have to distinguish practicing scientists from

1:34:16

people who talk about science. There

1:34:18

are lots of popularizes of science

1:34:21

and people that give you stories

1:34:23

based on time that they worked

1:34:25

as a scientist. That's very different

1:34:27

from a practice. Well, he works

1:34:30

with like right now. He works

1:34:32

with uranium and has a yeah,

1:34:34

here in his own lab in

1:34:37

his. I'm talking about practice. You

1:34:39

know, it's just like soccer players.

1:34:41

Okay. So there are people who